dismissed EB-1C Case: Automotive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-A-A-S- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 24, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an automobile dealership which states that it also conducts market research, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its president under the immigrant classification of a 
multinational executive or manager. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(C), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner 
appealed the decision, and we summarily dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen, which we denied. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider, after which we remanded 
the matter to the Director for a new decision. The Director issued a Request for Evidence, and 
subsequently denied the petition for abandonment. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen. We 
reviewed the matter on certification, and affirmed the denial of the petition on the merits. The 
matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. The motion will be denied. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the motion does not merit reopenmg the 
proceeding. 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(i) states that "the official having jurisdiction may, for proper 
cause shown, reopen the proceeding." This provision limits our authority to reopen the proceeding 
to instances where "proper cause" has been shown for such action. Thus, to merit reopening, the 
submission must not only meet the formal requirements for filing, but the petitioner must also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(2), "Requirements for motion to reopen," states: 
A motion to reopen must [(1)] state the new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding and [(2)] be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence .... 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-A-A-S- Corp. 
Further, the new facts must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with 
all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter 
ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-
40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
II. DISCUSSION 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reopening the proceeding. The issue before us is whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In this decision, the new facts on motion consist 
primarily of additional details regarding the Beneficiary's asserted duties as a manager or executive. 
Because we previously issued a full decision on the merits on July 30, 2015, this decision will focus 
on the materials submitted on motion, with some discussion of prior facts to give context to the new 
discussion. Our 
prior decision contains further details. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140 on November 21, 2011, seeking to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its president with an annual salary of $42,000. On the petition form, the Petitioner 
indicated that it had four employees. The Petitioner submitted a letter dated November 18, 2011, 
from who identified himself as the Petitioner's chief financial officer. 
stated: "With regard to personnel, aside from the beneficiary, we have an office assistant, two sales 
agents (commission based), and a chief financial officer." 
The Petitioner's documentation indicates that the Beneficiary was the Petitioner's only salaried 
employee in 2010, 2011, and 2012. In 2012, the Petitioner paid nonemployee compensation to two 
individuals: (salesman) received $3,894, and (office assistant) 
received $5,000. 
This information was a factor in the initial denial of the petition, because it did not indicate that the 
Petitioner employed subordinate staff that would relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform 
primarily non-qualifying tasks. In a statement submitted with an earlier motion in June 2013, the 
Petitioner stated: 
[T]he beneficiary's Office Assistant, is the beneficiary's wife; the 
Chief Financial Officer, is a 10% owner of the petitioner ... ; and the 
salesman, works on a commissioned basis as an independent contractor. 
These are the personnel that the beneficiary relies upon to perform the day-to-day 
functions ofthe company. 
stated that he and work for little or no compensation because they each 
have "a vested interest in the success of the company." The Petitioner repeats this assertion on 
motion. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-A-A-S- Corp. 
In a request for evidence dated April 28, 2015, we instructed the Petitioner to "submit copies of all 
IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement[s], issued to all employees in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 
2014, [and] all IRS Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, issued to all contracted workers in 
2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014." The Petitioner's response to this notice did not include any IRS 
Forms 1099-MISC for 2011. The Petitioner submitted copies of two IRS Forms 1 099-MISC for 
2012 (as described above); three for 2013; and five for 2014. Each of these forms showed 
compensation ranging from $1,518 to $9,075 per year. Only the Beneficiary received IRS Forms W-
2, indicating that he was the Petitioner's only salaried employee during those years. 
In our decision dated July 30, 2015, we stated: 
In the instant matter, the petitioner claims to have four staff members and 
contends that the sales staff seeks out the vehicles for purchase and sale and provides 
all of the necessary information to the beneficiary for his final decision on each 
transaction. In support of this claim, the petitioner asserts the beneficiary exclusively 
makes the final decisions and does not perform the specific tasks necessary to carry 
out the buying and selling of vehicles. However, at the time of filing the petition, on 
November 21, 2011, the petitioner failed to establish that it had any employees to 
carry out the non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks of its U.S. company. 
We noted that, while the Petitioner documented small payments to two subordinates in 2012, "the 
petitioner has not established that either of these individuals provided services to the company in 
2011 when the petition was filed." We found no evidence that the Petitioner employed anyone other 
than the Petitioner at the time of filing, and therefore "it is reasonable to believe that he was 
performing the non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks assigned to the claimed 
subordinates, including purchasing, sales, customer service, business development and day-to-day 
financial and administrative tasks." 
We also stated that the Petitioner had provided vague and conflicting job descriptions for the 
Beneficiary, which did not provide enough detail to show that the Beneficiary primarily performed 
qualifying managerial or executive duties. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits new affidavits from who, the 
Petitioner asserts, "were the personnel upon whom the beneficiary principally relied to perform the 
non-qualifying functions in 2011. In 2011 they were not paid a salary. There was also a person who 
scouted out sales on a commission basis." The Petitioner does not identify the "person 
who scouted 
out sales" or submit any documentary evidence of commission payments in 2011. We previously 
specifically requested such evidence, in the form of IRS Forms 1099-MISC. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
a/Treasure Craft ofCal?fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm'r 1972)). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-A-A-S- Corp. 
The Petitioner submitted its 2011 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, including 
IRS Form 1125-A, Cost of Goods Sold. On the latter form, the Petitioner did not claim any 
expenses under "Cost of Labor." The only reported costs were $17,258 in "Automobile Expense" 
and $39,696 for "Repairs and Maintenance." Therefore, the tax return does not show that the 
Petitioner paid any commissions in 2011, but it does report that the Petitioner made $175,502 in 
gross receipts or sales that year. The evidence, therefore, does not indicate that the Petitioner had 
any commissioned sales staff in 2011, the year the petition was filed. 
With no commissioned sales staff in 2011, someone else must have handled sales duties, which are 
not a qualifying managerial or executive function. In their new affidavits, neither nor 
state that they routinely handled sales duties. Therefore, it is not apparent that anyone 
other than the Beneficiary himself remained to perform that function. 
In his affidavit in connection with the instant motion, states "the duties undertaken by 
[the Beneficiary] as president with regard to his relationship to ... [the] Chief Financial Officer": 
• Meet with the Chief Financial Officer on a weekly basis. 
• Review the previous week's sales which includes: 
• verbal account of sales staff standings 
• sales staffs potential deals 
• potential vehicle procurement opportunities 
• vehicle inventory 
• Propose capital requests and budget requirements 
• Consider recommendations for business opportunities and possible financial 
growth based on extensive 
market research and tax strategies 
• Review and evaluate cash balances and cash forecasts 
• Review in depth analysis of financial statements on a monthly and yearly basis 
• Review information of the company's standings in banks and car auction accounts 
• Evaluate and act on maintaining good relations with these organizations 
• Evaluate and act on any insurance, legal and regulatory issues affecting the 
company and/or the industry 
• Advise and act on potential new advertising opportunities 
• Take action to insure liquidity to pay any significant expenses due 
• Make decisions on proposed budgets, capital requests, and business opportunities 
states, in her affidavit in connection with the instant motion, that the Beneficiary 
performs the following "duties ... as President with regard to his relationship to ... [the] Office 
Assistant": 
• Conduct meetings with our various outlets for sales both locally and abroad (by 
video conference) 
• Review requirements presented to him for purchase of cars for sale and export to 
service those outlets 
4 
Matter of S-A-A-S- Corp. 
• Compare the requirements against available inventory 
• Evaluate the information that is gathered concerning the need to purchase new 
inventory and decide on offering price, and determine if additional inventory 
needs to be purchased 
• Provide [the office assistant] with the parameters for seeking out new cars 
• Sign all of the required purchase documentation 
• Meet with executives, managers and owners of prospective new corporate clients 
abroad (e.g. car dealers from Italy, UK and Germany) via video conference, 
conference call or in person 
• Review their proposals and make final decisions in establishing new relationships 
with new clients 
• Negotiate and sign contracts with service providers 
• Maintain good public relations by communicating daily with sales outlets and 
exporters 
• Maintain good business relationship by communicating regularly with service 
providers 
• Address issues of government correspondence, rental issues and licensing issues 
• Provide motivation and ensure that company policies and procedures are 
understood and followed in accordance with solid business practices 
• Meet with [the office assistant] daily concerning cars scheduled for delivery; 
issues raised by service providers; scheduled appointments; important messages 
requiring his attention received via phone, mail or e-mail; government 
correspondence; and other reports. 
The new affidavits do not resolve our previously stated concerns about the Beneficiary's job 
description. The affidavits do not indicate how much time the Beneficiary devotes to each of the 
stated functions. Several of the functions are vague and general. For example, the Petitioner does 
not describe what action the Petitioner takes to "[p ]rovide motivation" or "to insure liquidity." The 
references to "sales staff standings" assumes the existence of a sales staff, which the record only 
intermittently documents. Other functions are non-managerial and non-executive, such as checking 
inventory. The new affidavits do not establish that the Beneficiary has worked, and will work, in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity, and they do not resolve the apparent absence of a sales 
staff at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner submits what appear to be web printouts containing general information about the job 
duties of the president of an organization. The information in these documents is, by nature, highly 
generalized, referring to presidents in the abstract rather than establishing the specific duties of the 
Beneficiary in particular. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties themselves reveal the 
true nature of the employment. !d. 
Matter of S-A-A-S- Corp. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. 
Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified 
responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion 
World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The record 
shows that the Beneficiary possesses the authority to meet the first part of the definitions, but not 
that the Beneficiary's qualifying duties suffice to make up his primary functions. At times, the 
Beneficiary appears to have been the Petitioner's only salaried employee, only sporadically assisted 
by contracted subordinates. 
The Petitioner has introduced new facts through the two affidavits submitted on motion, but the 
Petitioner has not shown that these new facts warrant reopening the proceeding or establish the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the immigrant classification sought in this proceeding. The web 
printouts amount to background information which do not introduce new facts, as such, into the 
proceeding. The materials submitted on motion do not show proper cause to reopen the proceeding. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The motion will be denied for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of S-A-A-S- Corp., ID# 15691 (AAO Feb. 24, 2016)